Beatriz Silva Mendoza and Others v. State of Argentina and Others (Argentina)

The Matanza-Riachuelo River Basin, stretching over 2,000km in Northeastern Argentina, harbors 10% of the nation’s population, including Buenos Aires. This vital area houses major industries boasting some of Argentina’s largest petrochemical compounds, alongside tanneries, incinerators and landfills, many unregulated. Unfortunately, this industrial stretch of the river basin transformed into one of the planet’s most contaminated regions, earning the ominous title of the “Inflammable Slum” due to toxic chemical pollution.

Beatriz Mendoza and 16 other residents (plaintiffs) took legal action against the Argentinian State, the Province of Buenos Aires and the City of Buenos Aires (defendants) as victims of environmental contamination. Their case drew on the constitutional right to a healthy environment (R2HE) as they sought compensation for damages from basin pollution, cessation of harmful activities and redress for collective environmental harm. Numerous environmental and non-governmental organizations joined as third parties, emphasizing the importance of preserving a clean environment and addressing the contamination’s adverse effects on economic, social and cultural rights such as health, water and sanitation, as well as R2HE.

The Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, instructing the River Basin Authority to develop and execute a comprehensive program outlined in their decision. This program encompassed various initiatives, which included monitoring and remedying industrial pollution, cleaning up landfills and riverbanks, expanding the potable water network, planning storm drainage works and improving sewage and sanitation systems. The Court mandated the completion of an environmental health assessment, establishment of an emergency health plan and implementation of a program to meet the needs of the river basin population, addressing the local health impacts caused by contamination. Notably, the Court refrained from prescribing specific measures, leaving their ruling open-ended. This approach empowered the respective authorities and governing bodies to devise an effective plan tailored to their assessments and expertise.

While the Court did not expressly adopt a human rights approach, in articulating the program’s objectives it invoked language aligned with R2HE. This included invoking principles such as the prevention principle and transparency and highlighting the connection between environmental and human health. Among other things, the State was required to take affirmative measures to improve the quality of life for the river basin’s inhabitants, restore the environment and prevent reasonably foreseeable harm.

Additionally, the Court directed the River Basin Authority to bear responsibility for any lapses or delays in compliance and delegated monitoring and enforcement duties to a lower federal court. Both the National and Buenos Aires state governments were tasked with concurrent responsibility for implementing the program.

Using an established domestic body of law

The plaintiffs initiated their claim under the General Environmental Law, the Argentinean Constitution and local norms specific to the City of Buenos Aires. These laws mandate the assurance of common use of the environment and collective well-being, emphasizing stewardship, prevention and restoration. Article 41 of the National Constitution — which enshrines R2HE— prioritizes environmental remediation and imposes a duty on authorities to protect R2HE. Asserting that their R2HE was violated, the plaintiffs invoked Article 43 of the Constitution, which allows parties affected by acts or omissions threatening a recognized right to seek an amparo, a form of legal recourse that enables swift action when no other suitable judicial remedy is available.

The Court found that it could exercise jurisdiction over the matter and that the respondents breached their obligations under the Constitution and national and local laws.

Using amicus curiae briefs advance the R2HE conceptually

Seven non-governmental organizations (NGOs) intervened as amici in the case. The Court justified their participation based on their connection to Argentine laws and the National Constitution and their genuine interest in safeguarding collective fundamental rights, including R2HE. The NGOs’ involvement brought expertise in highlighting the interconnectedness of environmental contamination and the erosion of human rights.

Although the Court did not explicitly base its decision on human rights or discuss the scope of such scope, including NGOs signaled an awareness that the case implicated important rights. This inclusion potentially familiarized the judiciary with R2HE’s framework and principles, which could influence future decisions.

Emphasizing the State’s duty to regulate or its failure to observe its due diligence obligations

The plaintiffs, in their case against various governing institutions ranging from city to national levels, contended that domestic law imposed a duty on the government to prevent environmental harm and protect residents. The Court concurred, ruling that the defendants were obligated to guarantee the common use of the environment and foster collective well-being influenced by environmental stewardship, which encompasses prevention, restoration and, ultimately, compensation for collective harm.

The case was a victory for the plaintiffs, emphasizing the need to safeguard health and the environment. However, it fell short of effectively addressing the environmental crisis in the Matanza-Riachuelo River Basin. While the involvement of NGOs offered valuable expertise on the nexus between human rights and the environment, the Court’s cautious approach to avoid infringing on the separation of powers weakened their order. By refraining from prescribing specific policy measures and instead relying on the respondents to create a program and report progress, the outcome offered limited benefits to the impacted communities and environment as the timeline and goals were not met.